Bava Kamma 202

רבא רמי תנן בגד שצבעו בקליפי ערלה ידלק אלמא חזותא מילתא היא ורמינהי רביעית דם שנבלעה בבית הבית טמא ואמרי לה הבית טהור ולא פליגי הא בכלים דהוו מעיקרא הא בכלים דאתו לבסוף

Raba pointed out a contradiction. We have learnt: 'A garment which was dyed with the shells [of the fruits] of <i>'Orlah</i> has to be destroyed by fire,' thus proving that colour is a distinct item; but a contradiction could be pointed out: 'If a quarter [of a <i>log</i>]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A liquid measure; cf. Glos. ');">¹</span> of [the] blood [of a dead person] has been absorbed in the floor of a house, [all in] the house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Subject to defilement. ');">²</span>

נבלעה בכסות רואין אם מתכבסת הכסות ויוצא ממנה רביעית דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

would become defiled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a quarter of a log of blood of a dead person is equal in law to the corpse itself and is subject to Num. XIX, 14. ');">³</span> or as others say, '[all in] the house would not be defiled'; these two statements, however, do not differ, as the former refers to utensils which were there at the beginning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before the blood was absorbed in the ground when it caused defilement. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רב כהנא מקולי רביעיות שנו כאן בדם תבוסה דרבנן:

whereas the latter refers to the utensils which were brought there subsequently [after the blood was already absorbed 'in the ground].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And could no more cause defilement. ');">⁵</span> 'If the blood was absorbed in a garment, we have to see: if on the garment being washed a quarter [of a <i>log</i>] of blood would come out of it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the way of calculation, v. Rashi and Tosaf. a.l. ');">⁶</span>

רבא רמי תנן ממין הצובעין ספיחי סטים וקוצה יש להן שביעית ולדמיהן שביעית יש להן ביעור ולדמיהן ביעור אלמא עצים יש בהן משום קדושת שביעית

it would cause defilement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the blood is in stich a case still considered present and existing in the garment. ');">⁷</span> but if not, it would not cause defilement'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the blood could no more be considered present in the garment. Oh. III, 2. This proves that a mere colour is not a distinct item. ');">⁸</span>

ורמינהי עלי קנים ועלי גפנים שגיבבן בחבא על פני השדה לקטן לאכילה יש בהן משום קדושת שביעית לעצים אין בהן משום קדושת שביעית

— Said R. Kahana: The ruling stated in this Mishnah is one of concessions made in respect of quarters [of a <i>log</i>], applicable in the case of blood of one weltering in his blood who defiles by [mere] Rabbinic enactment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was doubtful whether the quarter of the log of blood oozed out while the person was still alive and clean or afterwards and unclean; cf. Nid. 71a. ');">⁹</span> Raba again pointed out a contradiction: We have learnt: '[Among] the species of dyes, the aftergrowths of woad and madder are subject to the law of the sabbatical year,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV. 2-7. ');">¹⁰</span>

ומשני אמר קרא (ויקרא הכ, ו) לאכלה במי שהנאתו וביעורו שוין יצאו עצים שהנאתן אחר ביעורן

and so also is any value received for them subject to the law of the sabbatical year; they are subject to the law of removal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the house into the field as soon as similar crops are no more to be found in the field; cf. Sheb. IX. 2-3. ');">¹¹</span> and any value received for them is similarly subject to the law of removal,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sheb. VII, 1. ');">¹²</span>

והא איכא עצים דמשחן דהנאתן וביעורן שוין

thus proving that wood is subject to the sanctity of the sabbatical year; but a contradiction could be pointed out: 'leaves of reeds and leaves of vines which have been heaped up for the purpose of making them into a hiding place upon a field, if they were gathered to be eaten would be subject to the sanctity of the sabbatical year but if they were gathered for firewood they would not be subject to the sanctity of the sabbatical year'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suk. 40a. Now, does this not prove that wood is not subject to the law of the sabbatical year? ');">¹³</span> — But he himself answered: Scripture stated: 'for food',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 6. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רבא

implying that the law applies only to produce from which a benefit is derived at the time of its consumption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as is the case with fruits as food. ');">¹⁵</span> so that the wood for fuel is excluded as the benefit derived from it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For heating purposes. ');">¹⁶</span> is after its consumption. But is there not the wood of the pine tree [used for torches] from which a benefit is derived at the time of its consumption? — Raba said: